Page 6 of 8

Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2004 11:55 am
by JerCraigs
On 2004-01-11 20:42, esprit wrote:
I popped in Saturday afternoon to make a delivery and asked Brian what he thought of the review...they'd already had a lot of phone calls making reservations based upon the review...so that's that.
An excellent point. I think most people who read a given reviewer know what to expect from them. I also don't think anyone expects perfection from any restaurant. Each restaurant, like a brewer, has things they do better than others.

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2004 5:03 pm
by Mississauga Matt
Daniel Richler has reviewed and slammed the beerbistro in the Saturday Jan 31 edition of the National Post.

While I'm sure it will change no one's mind, I will post his comments if and when I can find the electronic copy.

Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2004 3:33 am
by borderline_alcoholic
From what I can gather, "Establishment Toronto" in its short-sighted and insular way will continue to put down good "beer establishments" simply because they do not understand them and have their own prejudices about beer (probably with a few notable exceptions). Therefore, I think that we are best advised to ignore these reviews on the grounds that *we* have a better understanding.

(And I still maintain that if critics do not understand beer, then their reviews of such places are incompetent.)

It is also hopeful that the adage that "there is no such thing as bad publicity" applies to some extent. (I am not so sure that it does, but it is a nice thought.)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: borderline_alcoholic on 2004-02-01 10:47 ]</font>

Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2004 12:01 pm
by PRMason
There is a restaurant in Pakenham (near where I live) that has a huge sign advertising "WARM BEER AND BAD FOOD." Its always packed in the summer time.
No such thing as bad press. While its always good to be mentioned, it keeps your restaurant or beer on the public's radar, constant bad reviews eventually catch-up with you. We should diligently express our disagreement with these articles when they are biased or inaccurate.
For the record, when I was at the Beerbistro on Wednesday of last week to do the meet the delivery guy thing, the kitchen concocted an excellent appetiser of mild curried chicken in light pastry that went beautifully with the Sgt. Majors IPA.

Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2004 9:47 am
by Josh Oakes
On 2004-02-01 03:33, borderline_alcoholic wrote:
From what I can gather, "Establishment Toronto" in its short-sighted and insular way will continue to put down good "beer establishments" simply because they do not understand them and have their own prejudices about beer (probably with a few notable exceptions). Therefore, I think that we are best advised to ignore these reviews on the grounds that *we* have a better understanding.

(And I still maintain that if critics do not understand beer, then their reviews of such places are incompetent.)

It is also hopeful that the adage that "there is no such thing as bad publicity" applies to some extent. (I am not so sure that it does, but it is a nice thought.)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: borderline_alcoholic on 2004-02-01 10:47 ]</font>
In his article on sea salt, this Richler character talks about drinking Guinness. Drinking that cold, sour, watery, nitro-killed crap alone speaks to his ill-taste in beer.

Now, for a Gourmande worth paying attention to, Fantome Gourmande is a damn fine saison available now at Premier Gourmet. No offense to De Dolle, but Dany Prignon is the real mad brewer. And no, a Guinness drinker wouldn't grasp his beer in the slightest.

Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2004 12:33 pm
by SirIsm
Trouble brewing: Beer Bistro's 100-strong selection of beers is lovely, but unfortunately the food and service fall flat

Jacob Richler
National Post
1,249 words
31 January 2004
National Post
Toronto
TO02
English
(c) 2004 National Post . All Rights Reserved.

BEER BISTRO

18 King St. E. 416-861-8242

Open for lunch and dinner Monday to Saturday

Lunch appetizers range from $5.50 to $12.75, mains from $8 to $17.50; dinner appetizers are $5.50 to $12.75, mains from $8 to $19.25

Reservations unnecessary

- - -

As it happens, I quite like beer. So I was very pleased when word came in late autumn that a place called Beer Bistro was due to open soon in the downtown core and serve up beer-friendly European food and 100-odd brews to go with it. Thirsty and keen, sometime in December I wandered in to have a first look around.

The place was immediately familiar, for it used to be a Rubino brothers restaurant called Zoom. Frankly, I was sad to learn of Zoom's demise, as I had a soft spot for the place.

Once, a couple of years back, when the Zone and the Atkins diets were at the peak of their early popularity, I took a friend there for lunch. He was a true believer, and when he spotted a steak listed on the menu he asked the waiter if he could have it without its accompanying vegetables or potatoes or yam fries or whatever offensively starchy stuff was supposed to come with it.

"Non, m'sieur," the waiter said, his French accent comically thick. "We cannot do that."

"Look, I'm not asking for a discount," my friend explained, baffled. "But I don't want anything on my plate but the steak."

"But m'sieur," the waiter protested, "without the vegetables the chef cannot make his tower!"

If you miss Zoom, too, rest easy, for there is plenty of it still standing at Beer Bistro, which the Rubino brothers now own with a new partner, local beer writer Stephen Beaumont. Evidence of Zoom is in fact everywhere. You bump into it even as you open the front door, which bears the old metal double-Z handle.

Within, the layout is the same, with the bar and lounge up front, lit by a dangling cluster of oversized globe lights. The dining room in back has the same tables and the same weird swirly-backed metal chairs. And Beer Bistro has the same open kitchen, flanked by a four-seat counter for those who might want to settle in for a tasting menu and watch the chefs work, which must make for a hot date.

"Hey, babe, guess what? I've got two kitchen-side stools booked tonight for Zoom -- sorry, I mean Beer Bistro. Tall food is out now, and they've gone beer-friendly. I sat there the other night and I got to see the chef make a hamburger from scratch! Tonight we could luck out and be sitting right there when he fries a sausage!"

What's new and beery are the reproductions of old beer posters hanging on the walls, along with some dubious paintings of foamy beer in different sorts of glasses. Food items are scrawled bistro-style on mirrors that hang between the handsome tall windows that grace the restaurant's western wall. And behind the bar, where liquor usually looms, one finds instead a wall of foreign beers on display. Beer bottles, actually. Because, as if at some rough roadside tavern in the Yukon where the regulars cannot be trusted not to grab the display and run, the bottles here -- like that big Duvel up top -- are mostly empty.

Last and probably least, there is all that beer-friendly food, such as the aforementioned burgers and sausage and a whole lot of less obvious stuff actually made with beer. Blanche de Chambly salmon gravlax, for example, along with cheese and lager fondue, Best Bitter bruschetta, Weissbier and salmon mussels, Belgian strong ale, coconut and curry mussels, Maudite beef stew, Oatmeal Stout lamb shank, and so on.

When I first popped in for lunch, ever hopeful, I opted to begin with a half-dozen baked oysters, some Belgian white beer mussels and an order of fries. The oysters were served in their shells with some slivered greens, a little Parmesan and way too much flaked hot pepper, but they were properly cooked, which was nice. Alas, so was all the seabed that no one had bothered to clean off the outside of the shell, and I must say the odour of lightly baked fish-outhouse can most kindly be described as appetite-suppressing.

That turned out to be a good thing because a whole 48 minutes passed before I looked over the top of my newspaper and caught a glimpse of the waitress coming my way again. But she was bearing neither food nor apology.

"Your food will be up momentarily," she said matter-of-factly, and disappeared again.

When the mussels did arrive it was evident they had been sun-tanning under a heat lamp for some time, because the shells on the top of the heap were dry and the mussels within shrivelled and tacky to the touch. The sauce was all right, though; likewise, the fries. So I figured I would return in the New Year. Foolishly I did, settling in at the bar with a date who -- after ordering a beer -- asked if she could smoke.

"No," the bartender said, "but since it's so cold outside I can let you go down to the parking garage if you want."

My date was touched, but declined, and we ordered some beer and food. The steak tartare was ground too fine and was off-puttingly wet. It was sweet with ketchup but had no bite -- from onion or mustard or gherkin or anything -- but for reasons unknown was topped off with burnt capers, which tasted foul. Belgian spiced ale braised duck gnocchi turned out to be a lump of bland braised duck surrounded by what tasted like miniature potato knishes from a bad delicatessen. Worried about the next course, we asked if we might have some more beer.

"We're trying a new draft," said one of the girls behind the bar, obviously irritated by the interruption.

Indeed, at that, rather than serve us, she served herself and her co-worker, then they turned their backs on us. In time we received a perfectly tolerable croque monsieur, full of thick-sliced ham and sticky, pungent cheese, and a fillet of salmon, which was properly grilled but doused, along with everything else on the plate, with a sauce Beer Bistro calls "Chouffe blonde horseradish butter sauce," but I would just call regrettable.

After a couple of other visits, I can say with queasy authority that the food ranges from ordinary pub class (the pizza -- I mean "flat beer bread") to downright mysterious (the lamb sausage -- the mystery being how it is possible to render the animal kingdom's fattiest meat into a sausage as dry as sawdust). Simply put, the 100-strong beer list is lovely, but you have to drink about half of it before you can face the food. And bemusedly chuckle at the prententiousness of this place instead of being just offended by it all.

jrichler@nationalpost.com;Business; Review

Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2004 1:56 pm
by DukeofYork = Richard
It's not the criticisms of the article that bother me, but rather the overly caustic tone of the writer. It ranges from condescending (the part about watching the chef) to outrageous (blaming the restaurant for smoking laws). Descpicable. But what do you expect from the National Post?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DukeOfYork on 2004-02-02 13:57 ]</font>

Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2004 2:12 pm
by JerCraigs
It reminds me of the Simpson's episode where Homer is a food critic and just trashes everything whether it deserves it or not. I find it curious that he had essentially nothing good to say here.

Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2004 2:15 pm
by borderline_alcoholic
It also strikes me that a lot of the criticism seems to stem from "Well it's just not Zoom, is it?", which seems a tad unfair given that it is not actually trying to be, AFAIK.

Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2004 3:21 pm
by Mississauga Matt
On 2004-02-02 13:56, DukeOfYork wrote:
... But what do you expect from the National Post?
Aside from this review, I expect and routinely find it to be a superior paper to The Globe, The Star, and The Sun, the latter two not really being newspapers.

Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2004 4:21 pm
by Andicus
Just wanted to point out that it was Jacob Richler, and not Daniel as had been mentioned earlier.

Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2004 8:31 pm
by Josh Oakes
On 2004-02-02 13:56, DukeOfYork wrote:
It's not the criticisms of the article that bother me, but rather the overly caustic tone of the writer. It ranges from condescending (the part about watching the chef) to outrageous (blaming the restaurant for smoking laws). Descpicable. But what do you expect from the National Post?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DukeOfYork on 2004-02-02 13:57 ]</font>
Yeah, the smoking thing was a bit much. Especially since it's a fact that smoking and enjoyment of food and drink are mutually exclusive.

Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2004 11:43 pm
by Rob Creighton
[On 2004-02-02 13:56, DukeOfYork wrote:
... But what do you expect from the National Post?[/quote]

Aside from this review, I expect and routinely find it to be a superior paper to The Globe, The Star, and The Sun, the latter two not really being newspapers.
[/quote]

Wait a minute, you mean the lack of newspaper that just went off the web unless you have a subscription. I'm shocked that any self-respecting reporter would remain with this rag. They just don't get it and certainly have no place with anyone on a legitimate open forum of opinion. They're lack of vision matches their editorial position.

Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2004 11:45 pm
by Rob Creighton
[On 2004-02-02 13:56, DukeOfYork wrote:
... But what do you expect from the National Post?[/quote]

Aside from this review, I expect and routinely find it to be a superior paper to The Globe, The Star, and The Sun, the latter two not really being newspapers.
[/quote]

Wait a minute, you mean the lack of newspaper that just went off the web unless you have a subscription. I'm shocked that any self-respecting reporter would remain with this rag. They just don't get it and certainly have no place with anyone on a legitimate open forum of opinion. Their lack of vision matches their editorial position.

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 1:09 am
by Rob Creighton
Sorry for the double post. It was the pale, corny, over carbonated, flavourless lager that I was swilling that caused a tremor.